Dear Avri

Greetings. If there is any way I can help to draft a statement to the board 
before the 28th please let me know.

Yours

Klais

-----Original Message----- 
From: Carl Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb

Thanks Avri,

This is disturbing news.  Hope you can get a quorum of the brainy people
in the group to create a sound response.  I wish I was thirty years
younger.  Looking forward to discussions.

Best

Lou

On 2/13/2013 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During yesterday's meeting we discussed the irem on the g-cpuncil agenda 
> pertaining to special protection for IGO, given the deadline of 28 Feb for 
> Board consideration of yet another preemptive assignment of an entitlement 
> to protection, as was done for the RCRC and IOC.
>
> It appears that Thomas is planning to suggest that the GNSO support a 
> decision by the Board granting entitlements to IGO names as suggest by the 
> GAC.
>
> Unfortunately Evan and I were the only one to speak out agains the board 
> making the decisions at this time because:
>
> A. it is not the same as the RCRC/IOC case since a PDP is ongoing and this 
> prejudices that work
> B.  It is not an emergency
>
> But Alan, the IOC and the Greg Shatan (IGO) spoke in favor of getting this 
> new entitlement as soon as possible, so the recommendation from Thomas 
> will be for the creation of the new entitlements, once again preempting 
> the rule of PDP.
>
> Note: Alan also suggested that if we don't like this or the previous 
> RCRC/IOC entitlement decision, we should file a reconsideration.  For 
> once, I agree with him.
>
> I would also note that no one from the RrSg or RySG ventured an opinion.
>
> At this point we have, perhaps, until 28 Feb to file a statement rejecting 
> yet another attack against the Rule of PDP.  Should we be working on one?
>
> Also should we file a request for reconsideration of the previous decision 
> on RCRC and IOC?  I am less sure about this because since there was no PDP 
> in process at the time.  While the best thing for the Board to have done 
> would have been to request a PDP, there was no rule that barred them from 
> the making a preemptive decision as they did.  Yes it is against the pubic 
> interest in that it erodes the confidence in the ICANN and its processes, 
> but it is not prevented by the bylaws.
>
> avri
>